Last I checked, at least half of the states have passed some form of decriminalization on the possession of marijuana. That is the issue correct? Certainly a wide selection of states for people to move if it is that important to them.
Are you referring to the states of Portugal?
In Lisbon you can possess any small amount of drug. You call it marijuana but its real name is
cannabis -- cannabis is decriminalized in all the states. In the capital no one will do anything if you are smoking a joint in the streets. Of course, there is cultural politeness, so people will have discretion, but from a legal standpoint they can't be tossed in jail and have their lives ruined over it.
Who is treating addicts like monsters?
Any system that criminalizes small possession is not only completely inefficient, it is also ethically vile. In many U.S. states, small possession of opiates or heroin is a felony charge. That's just ridiculous.
The reason why it treats addicts like monsters is because it's addicts who are in the most risky position to get caught. They have medical need of the substance so will play russian roulette with the law more readily. Combined with this, the medical system stigmatizes addicts because simply admitting you are high to most medical personnel will get you the third degree. De-couple the law from the medicine, and harm reduction will increase greatly. Then there will be less outbursts, violence, self-hurt, cries for help, etc.
As it stands, only the affluent get this kind of "fair" treatment, or
better The people of privilege who do drugs in this country, like the people in white collar professions, politicians, or simply the wealthy, get
off scott free. So not only is the system inefficient, it's partial.
However, some drugs do have a history of making people violent.
Another ambiguous statement. Sorry to give you the third degree, but you really need to be more specific. Every drug has a different socio-politico-economic profile.
Alcohol causes the most violence and property damage per capita. It's also addictive. Can you explain that one to me?
I have nothing but pity for addicts for because of their addiction they are not a free person. I've watched them destroy their health, lose their wealth, and create a living hell for their families and loved ones. Because of what I've observed personally no doubt has a role in why I am strongly against the legalization.
I don't understand the logical disconnect here. You admit all that, yet still favor punishment? How can you punish someone who is harming themselves? It's pretty much the opposite of what they need.
You acknowledge all that, yet won't acknowledge criminalizing them is just adding one more bain to their existence. There is no evidence that law-enforced recovery is lasting. If the addict doesn't
choose their recovery then their success profile is low. They will have access to their drug of choice regardless if it's legal or not, because blackmarket saturation is high in many parts of North America.
So, to summarize:
1) We can't keep drugs out.
2) We can't keep people from doing them.
3) Law enforcement is not increasing long-term recovery rates.
4) Drug enforcement as it looks now is an economic drain, and causes many opportunity costs for those processed in the system.
5) It's not impartially enforced. People of privilege and affluence not only do the drugs, they are often the source of their entry into this country.
6) The drug economy exists in the billions of dollars as an underground system, controlled by gangs who are
violent savages, resulting in even more social problems.
The list goes on.
Reagan tried. He had a pipe dream (no pun intended) about what drugs were doing to this country. IMO it was just another pet cause to shore up votes, but it was also a government power grab. He thought he could stop it, however well intended or deluded that was. But it didn't work.
What we need to do now is cut through the brainwashing of the past several decades, which is what cannabis law has started to do.
People who are in favor of drug laws really need to examine the HISTORY of the drug in question, and the government's role in oppressing it.